[G.R.. No. 121017.

February 17, 1997]

OLIVIA B. CAMANAG, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE JESUS F. GUERRERO IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY
AS CITY PROSECUTOR OF MANILA, NESTOR GONZALES, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS ASSISTANT
PROSECUTOR OF MANILA, THE HONORABLE MARlNO DELA CRUZ IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS
PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH 22 OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MANILA, respondents.
DECISION
HERMOSISIMA, JR., J.:
This case asks for and includes: (1) a Petition for Declaratory Relief under Rule 64 of the Revised
Rules of Court which seeks the declaration of nullity of Sections 15 and 17 of the Ombudsman Act
(R.A. No. 6770), insofar as it empowers the Ombudsman to conduct preliminary investigations and to
directly undertake criminal prosecutions; (2) a Petition for Certiorari to declare as null and void, for
allegedly having been rendered with grave abuse of discretion, the Resolution dated June 21, 1995
rendered in I.S. No. 95-D-12930 by respondent Assistant City Prosecutor Nestor D. Gonzales and
approved by respondent City Prosecutor Jesus F. Guerrero; (3) a Petition for Mandamus to compel
respondents City Prosecutor and Assistant City Prosecutor to conduct a preliminary investigation on
the complaint for Falsification of Public Documents filed against petitioner; and (4) a Petition for
Prohibition to enjoin respondent judge of the City of Manila from further proceeding with the cases
stemming from the information charging petitioner with three (3) counts of falsification lodged with
the trial court and to order the dismissal thereof.
The facts, as summarized in the Comment of the Office of the Solicitor General, are as follows:
"On August 2, 1993, the Professional Regulations Commission (PRC) issued the Table of Results of
those who failed the May, 1993 Certified Public Accountant (CPA) Licensure Examinations. On Page
11 thereof, Sequence No. 493, petitioner Olivia B. Camanag was listed as having failed with a general
average of 50.00% (Annex "1").
However, on December 15, 1993, petitioner in accomplishing her Personal Data sheet (CSC form No.
212) as employee of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) indicated under question No. 18 that she
passed the May, 1993 Board Examinations with a rating of 75.42% (Annex "2").
On July 4, 1994, an anonymous letter was sent to PRC Chairman Hermogenes P. Pobre 'claiming that
certain BIR employees allegedly passed the CPA Licensure Exams under anomalous circumstances'
(Annex "3").
Still, on July 28, 1994, petitioner claimed to have received what was purportedly a 'Certified True
Copy' of her passing rating sheet, allegedly signed by PRC Acting Assistant Chief Leandro O. Ordenes
(Mr. Leandro O. Ordenes is actually the Records Officer of the PRC) (Pet., Annex "C").
On August 24, 1994, PRC Chairman Pobre wrote Ombudsman Conrado Vasquez that BIR employees
Marilyn Lee, Connie Dimapilis, Eilene Purification, Elenita Villamor, Lodiminda Crizaldo, petitioner
Olivia Camanag and Maria Rosario de los Reyes, did not actually pass the CPA licensure examinations
(Annex "3").
On October 5, 1994, Associate Ombudsman Investigator (AOI) Joaquin S. Bumanlag set the factfinding investigation of the matter on October 11, 1994 at 10:00 a.m. He also issued a Subpoena
Duces Tecum to the Chief of the BIR Personnel Division (Annex "4").
On December 1, 1994, AOI Bumanglag concluded his fact-finding investigation with a Report finding
probable cause against petitioner for violation of Article 171(4) of the Revised Penal Code. AOI
Bumanglag recommended a preliminary investigation (Annex "5") to be conducted on the case, and
at the same time, he executed under oath the corresponding affidavit-complaint against petitioner
(Annex "6").
On December 19, 1994, Ombudsman Investigator (OI) Rainier C. Almazan, acting on the said
affidavit-complaint, directed petitioner to submit her counter-affidavit (Annex "7").
On January 13, 1995, petitioner submitted her counter-affidavit with annexes alleging that she
passed the CPA licensure examinations with a grade of 75.42% (Annex "8").
On January 31, 1995, PRC Records Section Chief Leandro O. Ordenes, issued a Certification, stating
that petitioner failed in the CPA licensure examinations (Annex "9").
On February 27, 1995, OI Almazan issued a Resolution, finding '. . . sufficient ground to engender a
well-founded belief that the crimes of falsification of public documents . . . have been committed . . .'
(Petition, Annex "F").

Under a 1st Indorsement of even date, Deputy Ombudsman for the Armed Forces of the Philippines
(AFP) Manuel B. Casaclang deputized respondent City Prosecutor of Manila Jesus Guerrero to file the
corresponding charges against petitioner and to handle the prosecution of the cases (Annex "10").
On April 11, 1995, the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila docketed the case as IS No. 95-D-12930
and herein respondent Nestor Gonzales, Assistant City Prosecutor of Manila, set it for another round
of preliminary investigation on May 5 and 12, 1995 (Annex "11").
While the preliminary investigation was ongoing before the City Prosecutor, petitioner filed a motion
to reset preliminary investigation (Annexes "11-A" and "12"), Motion to Issue Subpoena and
Subpoena Duces Tecum to Leandro Ordenes [OIC, Records Section] and Ernesto Jaurique [Exec.
Director] (Petition, Annex "G"); and a Comment/Manifestation stating, among others, that 'another
round of preliminary investigation should be conducted by the City Prosecutor.' Why petitioner should
demand another round of preliminary investigation while one was already on-going is not clear on
record.
At any rate, the preliminary investigation conducted by the City Prosecutor yielded additional
evidence of falsification against petitioner, to wit: Ordenes' Certification (Annex "9"), and the Table of
Results-Failed, CPA Licensure Exams (Annex "1"), both submitted by the PRC showing that petitioner
did flunk the CPA Licensure Exam of May, 1993.
On June 21, 1995, respondent City Prosecutor issued the questioned Resolution, 'x x x finding
sufficient ground to hold petitioner for trial' and ordering the filing of the Information in court (Pet.,
Annex "I").
On July 17, 1995, three (3) Informations for falsification of public documents were filed against
petitioner docketed as Criminal Cases No.
95-143922-24. The cases were raffled off to the
sala of respondent Judge Marino M. dela Cruz, Regional Trial Court, Branch 22, Manila (Annex "13-A" "13-C").
On July 25, 1995, petitioner filed a Motion to Reduce Bail Bond (Annex "14").
But even before respondent judge could act on his motion to reduce bail bond, petitioner filed the
instant petition.
Thereafter, petitioner posted her cash bond with 'Waiver' viz:
"'Pursuant to Letter of Instructions No. 40 dated November 10, 1972, issued by the President of the
Philippines, following annotation is hereby incorporated in the CASH BOND posted for the account in
the above-entitled cases.
The herein accused hereby agreed that in case she jumps bail or fails to appear for trial/arraignment
despite due notice to her counsel, her right to be present is deemed waived, which failure shall to all
intents and purposes authorize the Court to proceed with the hearing as if she were personally
present."[1]
The issues raised in the instant case are the following:
I
"WHETHER OR NOT SECTIONS 15 AND 17 OF REPUBLIC ACT 6770 WHICH EMPOWERS (SIC) THE
OMBUDSMAN TO CONDUCT PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATIONS OF MATTERS AND/OR REFERRED TO IT IS
(SIC) NULL AND VOID FOR BEING CONTRARY TO AND VIOLATIVE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE
CONSTITUTION.
II
"WHETHER OR NOT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OBTAINING IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE HONORABLE
PUBLIC RESPONDENTS CITY PROSECUTOR AND ASSISTANT CITY PROSECUTOR ARE DUTY BOUND AS
SUCH TO BE DIRECTED TO CONDUCT THE REQUISITE PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION OF THE
ANONYMOUS COMPLAINT FILED AGAINST HEREIN PETITIONER.
III
WHETHER OR NOT THE INFORMATIONS FILED BEFORE THE SALA OF THE HONORABLE RESPONDENT
JUDGE WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION CONDUCTED BY RESPONDENT CITY
PROSECUTOR ARE CHARACTERIZED BY SUCH FATAL DEFECTS AS TO WARRANT A WRIT OF

PROHIBITION TO ENJOIN RESPONDENT JUDGE FROM TAKING ANY FURTHER ACTION THEREON EXCEPT
TO ORDER THE OUTRIGHT DISMISSAL THEREOF."
I
As to the first issue, petitioner assails as unconstitutional Sections 15 and 17 of the Ombudsman Act
(R.A. No. 6770) insofar as it empowers the Office of the Ombudsman to conduct preliminary
investigation and to directly undertake criminal prosecutions on three grounds: (1) such grant of
powers to the Office of the Ombudsman has no constitutional basis and runs directly counter to the
intent of the framers of the Constitution; (2) it violates the principle of separation of powers; and (3)
it is in direct contravention of Article XI, Section 7 of the Constitution.
The assailed provisions of the Ombudsman Act read:
"SEC. 15.
Powers, functions and duties. The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the following
powers, functions and duties:
(1)
Investigate and prosecute on its own or on complaint by any person, any act or omission of any
public officer or employee, office or agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust,
improper or inefficient. It has primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan and,
in the exercise of this primary jurisdiction, it may take over, at any stage, from any investigatory
agency of Government, the investigation of such cases;
xxx

xxx

xxx

(3)
Direct the officer concerned to take appropriate action against a public officer or employee at
fault or who neglects to perform an act or discharge a duty required by law, and recommend his
removal, suspension, demotion, fine, censure, or prosecution, and ensure compliance therewith; or
enforce its disciplinary authority as provided in Section 21 of this Act; Provided, That the refusal of
any officer without just cause to comply with an order of the Ombudsman to remove, suspend,
demote, fine, censure, or prosecute an officer or employee who is at fault or who neglects to perform
an act or discharge a duty required by law shall be ground for disciplinary action against said officer."
xxx

xxx

xxx

"SEC. 17.
Immunities. In all hearings, inquiries, and proceedings of the Ombudsman, including
preliminary investigations of offenses, no person subpoenaed to testify as a witness shall be excused
from attending and testifying or from producing books, papers, correspondence, memoranda and/or
other records on the ground that the testimony or evidence, documentary or otherwise, required of
him, may tend to incriminate him or subject him to prosecution: Provided, That no person shall be
prosecuted criminally for or on account of any matter concerning which he is compelled, after having
claimed the privilege against self-incrimination, to testify and produce evidence, documentary or
otherwise.
Under such terms and conditions as it may determine, taking into account the pertinent provisions of
the Rules of Court, the Ombudsman may grant immunity from criminal prosecution to any person
whose testimony or whose possession and production of documents or other evidence may be
necessary to determine the truth in any hearing, inquiry or proceedings being conducted by the
Ombudsman or under its authority, in the performance of or in the furtherance of its constitutional
functions and statutory objectives. The immunity granted under this and the immediately preceding
paragraph shall not exempt the witness from criminal prosecution for perjury or false testimony nor
shall he be exempt from demotion or removal from office.
Any refusal to appear or testify pursuant to the foregoing provisions shall be subject to punishment
for contempt and removal of the immunity from criminal prosecution."
The Ombudsman Act, petitioner concedes, clearly empowers the Office of the Ombudsman to
conduct preliminary investigation and to prosecute individuals on matters and/or complaints referred
to it or filed before the said government agency. But, the vesting of powers to the Office of the
Ombudsman to conduct preliminary investigations and to directly undertake criminal prosecutions,
petitioner argues, is totally bereft of any constitutional basis. In support of this stand, petitioner cites
that, under the 1987 Philippine Constitution, specifically in Section 13, Article XI, entitled
"Accountability of Public Officers," the only powers of the present day Ombudsman are enumerated
as follows:
"Section 13. The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the following powers, functions and duties:
(1) Investigate on its own, or on complaint by any person, any act or omission of any public official,
employee, office or agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or

inefficient.
(2) Direct, upon complaint or at its own instance, any public official or employee of the Government,
or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, as well as of any government-owned or
controlled corporation with original charter, to perform and expedite any act or duty required by law,
or to stop, prevent, and correct, any abuse or impropriety in the performance of duties.
(3) Direct the officer concerned to take appropriate action against a public official or employee at
fault, and recommend his removal, suspension, demotion, fine, censure, or prosecution, and ensure
compliance therewith.
(4) Direct the officer concerned, in any appropriate case, and subject to such limitations as may be
provided by law, to furnish it with copies of documents relating to contracts or transactions entered
into by his office involving the disbursement or use of public funds or properties, and report any
irregularity to the Commission on Audit for appropriate action.
(5) Request any government agency for assistance and information necessary in the discharge of its
responsibilities, and to examine, if necessary, pertinent records and documents.
(6) Publicize matters covered by its investigation when circumstances so warrant and with due
prudence.
(7) Determine the causes of inefficiency, red tape, mismanagement, fraud, and corruption in
government and make recommendation for their elimination and the observance of high standards of
ethics and efficiency.
(8) Promulgate its rules of procedure and exercise such other powers or perform such functions or
duties as may be provided by law. (Emphasis supplied).
From the above-quoted provision of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, petitioner claims that the
powers of the Ombudsman are clearly defined or delineated. More particularly, petitioner alleges that
the extent of the power of the Ombudsman, insofar as criminal prosecutions are concerned, is clearly
spelled out in paragraphs (1) and (3) as emphasized. But while, petitioner alleges, Section 13,
paragraph (1) of the aforecited Article XI of the Constitution duly empowers the Ombudsman to
conduct investigations, the power to directly undertake criminal prosecutions has been clearly
withheld by the framers of the Constitution from the Ombudsman in no uncertain terms under
paragraph (3) of the aforecited article, which merely empowers the Office of the Ombudsman "to
direct the officer concerned to take appropriate action and recommend prosecution". Thus, according
to petitioner, while it is clear that the Office of the Ombudsman has no power to directly undertake
criminal prosecutions, there is a question as to whether the power lodged in it to investigate under
paragraph (1) is tantamount to a grant of power to conduct preliminary investigations.
Petitioner submits that consonant to the withholding of the power to directly undertake criminal
proceedings, the Ombudsman does not possess the power to conduct formal preliminary
investigation proceedings for the simple reason that formal preliminary investigation proceedings
constitute an integral part of the process of criminal prosecutions. This is so, according to petitioner,
inasmuch as the term prosecution is defined by Black's Law Dictionary as:
"x x x (a) criminal action: a proceeding instituted and carried on by due course of law, before a
competent tribunal, for the purpose of determining the guilt or innocence of a person charged with
crime x x x"[2]
More precisely, petitioner continues, "to prosecute" has been defined as "to begin and to carry on a
legal proceeding,"[3] and "it marks the commencement of a criminal prosecution and precedes and
determines the filing of an information."[4]
Additionally, petitioner asserts that the unqualified grant of prosecutorial powers to the Ombudsman
runs directly against the intent of the framers of the Constitution, particularly, to lodge prosecutorial
powers in other governmental officers, i.e., the public prosecutors. In further support of this
argument, petitioner relies heavily on the records of the proceedings of the Constitutional
Commission of 1986, particularly, on the debates and interpellations of the Committee on
Accountable Officers which drafted Section 13, Article XI of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.
Indeed, the proceedings so indicate:
"MR.. RODRIGO:
The President:

Madam President.
Commissioner (Francisco A.) Rodrigo is recognized.

MR. RODRIGO: I noticed that the proposed provisions on the Ombudsman retain the Tanodbayan,
and there seems to be an overlapping in the functions of the Tanodbayan and the Ombudsman. What
is the clear-cut dividing line between the functions of the Ombudsman and the Tanodbayan, so that
our people will know when to go to the Tanodbayan and when to go to the Ombudsman?
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, essentially, the difference lies in one being a prosecutory arm and
the other a champion of the citizen who is not bound by legal technicalities or legal forms, but I
would like to ask Commissioner Nolledo to explain this in detail.
MR. NOLLEDO: If we go over the provision of P.D. No. 1607, which amended P.D. No. 1487, creating
the Office of the Tanodbayan, also called by Mr. Marcos as Ombudsman, there are two parts in the
functions of the Tanodbayan: First, to act as prosecutor of anti-graft cases, and to entertain
complaints from the public. The second part constitutes the basic function of the Ombudsman. And if
we turn to page 3 of the report of the Committee, Section 5 provides and I quote:
'The Tanodbayan created pursuant to the mandate of Section 6 of Article XIII of the Constitution shall
continue to function and exercise its powers as now or hereafter may be provided by law, except
those conferred on the office of the Ombudsman created under this constitution.'
This means that we are removing the second part of the functions of the Tanodbayan and vesting the
same in the office of the Ombudsman; and therefore, the Tanodbayan shall continue to discharge his
functions under the first party merely as prosecutor, like a fiscal, of anti-graft cases, which are filed
with the Anti-Graft Court.
MR. RODRIGO: So, the Ombudsman cannot prosecute?
MR. NOLLEDO: No, he cannot. He can refer the cases that should be prosecuted to the appropriate
official he may be the Tanodbayan or he may be the ordinary fiscal.
MR. RODRIGO: Has the Ombudsman any power to compel the prosecuting arm to prosecute or can
he only recommend?
MR. NOLLEDO: He can direct.
MR. RODRIGO: Can he command?
MR. NOLLEDO: That is equivalent to commanding the fiscal if the fiscal refuses to file the case. And
then in that case, if the fiscal refuses, then there are available remedies. He may appeal to the
Ministry of Justice.
MR. RODRIGO: Can the Ombudsman act on his own?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, even without a complaint.
MR. RODRIGO: If the fiscal refuses to file the information, can the Ombudsman file the information?
MR. NOLLEDO: No. I understand he will appeal to the Minister of Justice and the Ministry of Justice
will correspondingly decide on the appeal. If the Ministry of Justice, for example, upholds the
Ombudsman, there is no question about that. But if the Ministry of Justice does not uphold him, the
Ombudsman perhaps, based on the presidential form of government, may appeal to the President.
And the President, where the Ministry of Justice is merely his alter ego, may overrule the Minister of
Justice . . . .xxx."[5]
In view of the above-quoted records of the proceedings of the Constitutional, Commission, it is clear,
petitioner argues, that the power of the Ombudsman is limited to the mere issuance of the directives
to the appropriate officer, i.e., the Prosecutor, to cause the filing of the information and the
prosecution thereof. This allegedly clearly portrays the intent of the Constitutional Commission
members to withhold prosecutorial powers from the Ombudsman and to lodge it with other
governmental officers.
Anent the second ground, petitioner argues that the unqualified grant of prosecutorial powers to the
Office of the Ombudsman violates the principle of separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution.
This, inasmuch as, according to petitioner, the Office of the Ombudsman is a constitutional body, and
is a part neither of the legislative, executive nor judiciary branches. As such, petitioner claims, in the
absence of an express constitutional provision to the contrary, it is not empowered to conduct
preliminary investigations, as these pertain exclusively to the executive branch.
Anent the third ground, which petitioner claims as perhaps the strongest argument against the
constitutionality of R.A. No. 6770, petitioners argues that the unqualified grant of prosecutorial

powers on the Office of the Ombudsman is in direct contravention of Article XI, Section 7 of the 1987
Philippine Constitution. Article XI, Section 7 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution reads:
"Section 7. The existing Tanodbayan shall hereafter be known as the office of the Special
Prosecutor. It shall continue to function and exercise its power as now or hereafter may be provided
by law, except those conferred on the office of the Ombudsman created under this Constitution."
In support of this argument, petitioner claims that in the interpretation of this particular provision and
those pertaining to the office of the Ombudsman, Fr. Joaquin Bernas, an eminent authority on
constitutional law and a member of the 1986 Constitutional Commission, had occasion to write:
"The 1973 Constitution also enjoined the Batasang Pambansa to create an office of the Ombudsman
or Tanodbayan. Again the Batasang Pambansa was anticipated by the President in P.D. 1630 creating
the office then of Tanodbayan. The broad discretion of the legislative authority to expand or contract
the power of the Tanodbayan under the 1973 Constitution was recognized in Inting v. Tanodbayan.
The 1987 Constitution changed much of that. The title Tanodbayan has been retained for the
Ombudsman. He has also been given one over-all deputy and at least one deputy each for Luzon,
Visayas, and Mindanao. He retains the functions of the Tanodbayan of the 1973 Constitution except
the prosecutorial functions.
The Ombudsman and his deputies are appointed by the President from a list of nominees presented
by the judicial and Bar Council and they have rank of Chairman and Member respectively of the
Constitutional Commissions. They serve for a term of seven years.
The prosecutorial functions have been given over to a Special Prosecutor from the Ombudsman. (The
Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, Bernas, Joaquin, Vol. II, 1990 p. 408) [emphasis
supplied]"[6]
If prosecutorial functions have in fact been retained by the Office of the Special Prosecutor, petitioner
opines, the unqualified grant of power to exercise such prosecutorial functions given by R.A. No. 6770
to the office of the Ombudsman invariably diminishes the authority and power lodged in the office of
the Special Prosecutor. In this light, petitioner argues, R.A. No. 6770, insofar as it unqualifiedly vests
prosecutorial functions to the office of the Ombudsman, infringes on Section 7, Article XI of the
fundamental law, and is hence, unconstitutional.
We are visibly impressed by the ratiocinations of petitioner, but, unfortunately, we are bound by
stare decisis.
I
Anent petitioner's contention that the vesting of prosecutorial powers to the Ombudsman finds no
basis in the 1987 Constitution and that it runs counter to the intent of the framers of the Constitution
to withhold such powers from the Ombudsman, suffice it to state that a similar contention had
already been overruled by this Court in the case of Acop v. Office of the Ombudsman.[7] In upholding
the validity of the grant of prosecutorial powers on the Ombudsman, notwithstanding the intent of
the framers of the 1987 Constitution to withhold such powers from him, this Court declared, that:
"xxx (w)hile the intention to withhold prosecutorial powers from the Ombudsman was indeed
present, the Commission did not hesitate to recommend that the Legislature could, through statute,
prescribe such other powers, functions and duties to the Ombudsman. Paragraph 6, Section 12 of the
original draft of the proposed Article on Accountability of Public Officers, which the Committee
recommended for incorporation in the Constitution, reads:
xxx

xxx

xxx

(6)
To exercise such powers and perform such functions or duties as may be provided by law (2
Record, 264).
As finally approved by the Commission after several amendments, this is now embodied in paragraph
8, Section 13, Article XI (Accountability of Public Officers) of the Constitution, which provides:
Section 13.

The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the following powers, functions, and duties:

xxx

xxx

xxx

Promulgate its rules and procedure and exercise such other functions or duties as may be provided
by law. (emphasis supplied)

Expounding on this power of Congress to prescribe other powers, functions, and duties to the
Ombudsman, we quote Commissioners Colayco and Monsod during interpellation by Commissioner
Rodrigo:
MR. RODRIGO:
Let us go back to the division between the powers of the Tanodbayan and the Ombudsman which
says that:
The Tanodbayan . . . shall continue to function and exercise its powers as provided by law, except
those conferred on the office of the Ombudsman created under this Constitution.
The powers of the Ombudsman are enumerated in Section 12.
MR. COLAYCO:
They are not exclusive.
MR. RODRIGO:
So, these powers can also be exercised by the Tanodbayan?
MR. COLAYCO:
No, I was saying that the powers enumerated here for the Ombudsman are not exclusive.
MR. RODRIGO:
Precisely, I am coming to that. The last enumerated functions of the Ombudsman is: 'to exercise such
powers or perform such functions or duties as may be provided by law. 'So, the legislature may vest
him with powers taken away from the Tanodbayan, may it not?
MR. COLAYCO:
Yes.
MR. MONSOD:
Yes.
MR. RODRIGO:
And it is possible that pretty soon the Tanodbayan will be a useless appendage and will lose all his
powers.
MR. COLAYCO:
No. I am afraid the Gentleman has the wrong perception of the system. We are leaving to the
Tanodbayan the continuance of his functions and the exercise of the jurisdiction given to him
pursuant to . . .
MR. RODRIGO:
Law.
MR. COLAYCO:
No. Pursuant first to the Constitution and the law which mandated the creation of the office.
MR. RODRIGO:
Madam President. Section 5 reads: 'The Tanodbayan shall continue to function and exercise its
powers as provided by law.'
MR. COLAYCO:
That is correct, because it is under P.D. No. 1630.
MR. RODRIGO:

So, if it is provided by law, it can be taken away by law, I suppose.

MR. COLAYCO:
That is correct.
MR. RODRIGO:
And precisely, Section 12(6) says that among the functions that can be performed by the
Ombudsman are 'such functions or duties as may be provided by law.' The sponsors admitted that
the legislature later on might remove some powers from the Tanodbayan and transfer these to the
Ombudsman.
MR. COLAYCO:
Madam President, that is correct.
MR. MONSOD:
Madam President, perhaps it might be helpful if we give the spirit and intendment of the Committee.
What we wanted to avoid is the situation where it deteriorates into a prosecution arm. We wanted to
give the idea of the Ombudsman a chance, with prestige and persuasive powers, and also a chance
to really function as a champion of the citizen.
However, we do not want to foreclose the possibility that in the future, The Assembly, as it may see
fit, may have to give additional powers to the Ombudsman; we want to give the concept of a pure
Ombudsman a chance under the Constitution.
MR. RODRIGO:
Madam President, what I am worried about is if we create a constitutional body which has neither
punitive nor prosecutory powers but only persuasive powers, we might be raising the hopes of our
people too much and then disappoint them.
MR. MONSOD:
I agree with the Commissioner.
MR. RODRIGO:
Anyway, since we state that the powers of the Ombudsman can later on be implemented by the
legislature, why not leave this to the legislature?
MR. MONSOD:
Yes, because we want to avoid what happened in 1973. I read the committee report which
recommended the approval of the 27 resolutions for the creation of the office of the Ombudsman,
but notwithstanding the explicit purpose enunciated in that report, the implementing law the last
one, P.D. No. 1630 did not follow the main thrust; instead it created the Tanodbayan, (2 record,
270-271. ) (Emphasis supplied)
xxx

xxx

xxx

MR. MONSOD:

(reacting to statements of Commissioner Blas Ople):

May we just state that perhaps the honorable Commissioner has looked at it in too much of an
absolutist position, The Ombudsman is seen as a civil advocate or a champion of the citizens against
the bureaucracy, not against the President. On one hand, we are told he has no teeth and he lacks
other things. On the other hand, there is the interpretation that he is a competitor to the President,
as if he is being brought up to the same level as the President.
With respect to the argument that he is a toothless animal, we would like to say that we are
promoting the concept in its form at the present, but we are also saying that he can exercise such
powers and functions as may be provided by law in accordance with the direction of the thinking of
Commissioner Rodrigo. We did not think that at this time we should prescribe this, but we leave it up
to Congress at some future time if it feels that it may need to designate what powers the
Ombudsman need in order that he be more effective. This is not foreclosed.

So, his is a reversible disability, unlike that of a eunuch; it is not an irreversible disability (Emphasis
supplied)."[8]
The inevitable conclusion is that the Ombudsman, under the 1987 Constitution, particularly under
paragraph 8, Section 13, Article XI,[9] may be validly empowered with prosecutorial functions by the
legislature, and this the latter did when it passed R.A. No. 6670, which gave the Ombudsman, among
others, the power to investigate and prosecute individuals on matters and/or complaints referred or
filed before it.Sdaad
II
Turning now to the second ground, petitioner contends that the Office of the Ombudsman, being a
constitutional body, cannot exercise executive functions, such as conducting preliminary
investigation in criminal cases. The contention is devoid of merit. As conceded by the petitioner, the
Office of the Ombudsman is a distinct constitutional body whose duties and functions are provided
for by the Constitution itself. Considering that the power of the Ombudsman to investigate and
prosecute criminal cases emanates as it does from the Constitution itself, particularly, under
paragraph 8, Section 13, Article XI as above-quoted, which empowers the Ombudsman to "exercise
such other powers or perform such other functions or duties" as Congress may prescribe through
legislation, it cannot be logically argued that such power or the exercise thereof is unconstitutional or
violative of the principle of separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution.
Equally devoid of merit is the contention of petitioner that R.A. No. 6770, insofar as it unqualifiedly
vests prosecutorial functions on the Ombudsman, infringes on Section 7, Article XI of the
Constitution, in that it invariably diminishes the authority and power lodged in the Office of the
Special Prosecutor. This ground relied upon by petitioner, like the first ground, has also been
extensively dealt with and answered in, the aforecited case of Acop v. Office of the Ombudsman.[10]
Addressing the contention raised by petitioners that the Office of the Special Prosecutor is not
subordinate to the Ombudsman and is, in fact, separate and distinct from the Ombudsman, such that
Congress may not, under the present Constitution, validly place the Office of the Special Prosecutor
under the Office of the Ombudsman, this court has upheld not only the power of Congress to so place
the Office of the Special Prosecutor under the Ombudsman, but also the power of the Congress to
remove some of the powers granted to the then Tanodbayan, now Office of the Special Prosecutor,
under P.D. 1630, and transfer them to the Ombudsman. Thus, this Court said:
"xxx Section 7 of Article XI expressly provides that the then existing Tanodbayan, to be henceforth
known as the Office of the Special Prosecutor, 'shall continue to function and exercise its powers as
now or hereafter may be provided by law, except those conferred on the Office of the Ombudsman
created under this Constitution.' The underscored phrase evidently refers to the Tanodbayan's
powers under P.D. No. 1630 or subsequent amendatory legislation. It follows then that Congress may
remove any of the Tanodbayan's/Special Prosecutor's powers under P.D. No. 1630 or grant it other
powers, except those powers conferred by the Constitution on the Office of the Ombudsman."[11]
Continuing, this Court further said:
"Pursuing the present line of reasoning, when one considers that by express mandate of paragraph 8,
Section 13, Article XI of the Constitution, the Ombudsman may 'exercise such other powers or
perform functions or duties as may be provided by law,' it is indubitable then that Congress has the
power to place the Office of the Special Prosecutor under the Office of the Ombudsman. In the same
vein, Congress may remove some of the powers granted to the Tanodbayan by P.D. No. 1630 and
transfer them to the Ombudsman; or grant the Office of the Special Prosecutor such other powers
and functions and duties as Congress may deem fit and wise. This Congress did through the passage
of R.A. No. 6770" (Emphasis supplied).[12]
III
The other question raised herein pertains to whether or not under the circumstances obtaining in the
instant case, public respondents City Prosecutor and Assistant City Prosecutor are duty bound to
conduct another preliminary investigation of the anonymous complaint filed against herein petitioner.
Substantially, petitioner alleges that, inasmuch as the refusal by respondents City Prosecutor and
Assistant City Prosecutor to conduct a preliminary investigation was predicated on the assumption
that R.A. No. 6770 duly empowers the Office of the Ombudsman to conduct a preliminary
investigation, which petitioner asserts is unconstitutional, said respondents are compellable by
mandamus to conduct their own preliminary investigation, and their refusal to a preliminary
investigation of the charges against petitioner is tantamount to a denial of due process. Additionally,
petitioner alleges that the conduct of a preliminary investigation is mandated further by the inherent
weakness in complainant's case
These contentions of petitioner are devoid of merit.

Firstly, as have been extensively discussed above, petitioner's attack on the validity or
constitutionality of R.A. No. 6770 is without merit. Thus, there is no more question on the validity or
constitutionality of the power of the Ombudsman to conduct the preliminary investigation of the
charges against respondent. It is not pretended further by petitioner that the Ombudsman did not
actually conduct a preliminary investigation of the charges against her, although petitioner alleged
certain defects in the conduct of the preliminary investigation.
In the second place, as correctly observed by the Office of the Solicitor General in its Comment, there
is sufficient showing that another round of preliminary investigation, apart from the one conducted
by the Office of the Ombudsman, was actually conducted by the Office of the City Prosecutor of
Manila in the cases a quo. Thus, on record are petitioner's various Motions filed before the City
Prosecutor to reset preliminary investigation[13] and to subpoena a certain witness.[14] Petitioner
had likewise filed her comment on the cases against her then pending with the City Prosecutor.[15]
Complainant PRC also submitted evidence against petitioner in the same proceedings. Finally, a
memo of preliminary investigation conducted by the City Prosecutor was attached to the
Informations eventually filed against petitioner before the Ombudsman.[16] These pieces of evidence
clearly indicate that a second round of preliminary investigation was conducted by the City
Prosecutor.
There is no basis, therefore, to petitioner's allegations, and petitioner cannot validly claim, that she
had been denied due process either by the Office of the Ombudsman or by the City Prosecutor.
Neither is the alleged inherent weakness of complainant' s case, a ground to compel the City
Prosecutor to conduct another preliminary investigation, apart from the one already conducted and
the one conducted earlier by the Ombudsman. On this score, suffice it to state that this Court has
adopted a policy of non-interference in the conduct of preliminary investigations, and leaves to the
investigating prosecutor sufficient latitude of discretion in the exercise of determination of what
constitute sufficient evidence as will establish "probable cause" for filing of information against a
supposed offender. In Tabujara v. Office of the Special Prosecutor,[17] it was ruled that:
"Courts cannot interfere with the discretion of the (fiscal) Ombudsman to determine the specificity
and adequacy of the averments of the offense charged. He may xxx proceed with the investigation
of the complaint if it is, in his view, in due and proper form.
xxx

xxx

xxx

"The Ombudsman x x x is the proper adjudicator of the question as to the existence of a case
warranting the filing of information in court."[18]
As this Court held in the case of Cruz, Jr. v. People,[19] "(t)he rule is based not only upon the
investigatory and prosecutory powers granted by the Constitution to the Office of the Ombudsman
but upon practicality as well. Otherwise, the functions of the courts will be grievously hampered by
innumerable petitions assailing the dismissal of investigatory proceedings conducted by the Office of
the Ombudsman with regard to complaints filed before it, in much the same way that the courts
would be extremely swamped if they could be compelled to review the exercise of discretion on the
part of the prosecuting attorneys each time they decide to file an information in court or dismiss a
complaint by a private complainant."
IV
With respect to the issue as to whether or not the Informations filed before the sala of respondent
judge, allegedly without the benefit of a preliminary investigation conducted by respondent City
Prosecutor, are characterized by such fatal defects that would warrant a writ of prohibition to enjoin
respondent judge from taking any further action thereon except to order the case's outright
dismissal, suffice it to state that the pronouncements of this court aforesaid, for obvious reasons, no
longer need a discussion as to the merit or the lack thereof. Besides, petitioner's prayer for injunction
to restrain the criminal action against her is not legally permissible:
"xxx an injunction will not generally lie to restrain a criminal action (Paderanga v. Drilon, 196 SCRA
86 [1991]; Brocka v. Enriel, 192 SCRA 183 [1990]; Crespo v. Mogul, 151 SCRA 462 [1987]). In the
Brocka case, we laid the following exceptions to the rule (1) when the injunction is necessary to
afford adequate protection to the constitutional rights of the accused; (2) when it is necessary for the
orderly administration of justice or to avoid oppression or multiplicity of actions; (3) when there is a
prejudicial question which is subjudice; (4) when the acts of the officer are without or in excess of
authority; (5) where the prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance or regulation; (6) when double
jeopardy is clearly apparent; (7) where the Court has no jurisdiction over the offense; (8) where it is a
case of persecution rather than prosecution; (9) where the charges are manifestly false and
motivated by the lust for vengeance; and (10) when there is clearly no prima facie case against the

accused and a motion to quash on that ground has been denied."[20]

Petitioner has not shown that her case falls within any of the recognized exceptions. Perforce, her
prayer for injunction to restrain the criminal actions against her must be denied.
WHEREFORE, for lack of merit, the instant Petition is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.